Skip to comments.Ungovernable America (Prominent liberal blogger gently hints at junking the filibuster altogether)
Posted on 12/12/2009 8:04:18 AM PST by GOP_Resurrected
Were suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majoritys governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking. Or you can have a system in which a defeated minority rejects the majoritys governing agenda out of hand, seeks opening for attack, and hopes that failure on the part of the majority will bring them to power. But right now we have both simultaneously. Its a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. Its insane, and it needs to be changed.
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
WHAAAT now the party of the “oppressed” masses what to oppress the minority it doesn’t like?
Who would have thunk.
Damn fool liberals better hope that we don’t decide to change the rules of the game,and take our grievences to the street.
Progressives only believe in minority rights if they happen to be the minority whose ox is gored otherwise there should be nothing standing in the way of a majority imposing its will. According to Teddy Roosevelt even the Constitution should not be used by the courts to protect the property rights of the minority if the majority could benefit from eliminating such rights.
Scratch a "progressive" and thats what you'll find.
Interesting that when the Republicans had a majority in the senate and the democrats filibustered most of Bush’s judicial nominees as well as many of his programs such as social security reform, they were all in favor of the filibuster rule.
Personally I think it’s a great rule - it minimizes the number of laws passed which is a good thing.
“Or you can have a system in which a defeated minority rejects the majoritys governing agenda out of hand...”
Which may well be the right thing to do when the political platforms of the two parties are at diametrical opposition to one another. These whiners can’t even accept their majority position.
The simple fact is that they DON’T need the pubbies. They have the capacity to pass ANYTHING they desire. And, they have a Pres__ent who will sign any socialist measure that hits the desk.
What they don’t have is the political cover that comes with ‘bipartisanship’. And, that galls them.
It’s time to take back the country.
Idiots. Those in the minority still represent American citizens who elected them.
with the Democrats it’s ‘winner take all, all all! Bwahhahahahaha!’
But when it’s a Republican majority, well, they are just greedy white capitalist opressors and must be resisted.
I don't want to be hindered by the need to have 60 votes if the GOP is ever in again and wants to reverse socialism. If you did keep it, it would have to be a way of delaying a vote, not preventing it forever.
The time to get rid of it is at the start of a Senate session. Each new Senate is empowered to change the rules of the old one, they are not bound by what prior Senates did. The Dems are stuck with their rules for this session.
The underlying fault in this fool’s argument is the premise that governing is a good thing.
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” Daniel Webster
“”That government is best which governs least.” Thomas Paine
Ambiens calor tyrannis
I agree with you yet disagree....we can junk the filibuster, if we repeal the 17th amendment...then the senate represents the states, not a political party, just like it was intended to be
Keep the filibuster!
Fear government .
The idiot apparently has no idea of the concept of checks and balances.
“You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majoritys governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking. Or you can have a system in which a defeated minority rejects the majoritys governing agenda out of hand, seeks opening for attack, and hopes that failure on the part of the majority will bring them to power”
The author seems to think this is a contradiction, for some reason (almost certainly because Democrats are in power). As if it makes no sense for the minority to at once have the opportunity to thrive off scraps from the majority’s table and be able to go it alone and benefit from the majority’s downfall.
How “insane” it is, that they have options. Whoever would devise a system wherein minorities have power? What kind of upside-down, backwards world are we livin in? Next thing you know, the states are going to start opposing the federal government. Madness, I say!
“What they dont have is the political cover that comes with bipartisanship.”
Yet they pretend they do, as in when Obama claims (paraphrasing), “We’re the bipartisan ones because they won’t do everything we tell them to do.”
“There is nothing in the Constitution about a supermajority for all legislation that gets considered by the Senate, it is simply a Senate tradition.”
I like traditions. Some of them. The fillibuster is one of those “informal amendments,” like judicial review, (originally) the two-term president, that works. Some of the time.
Is this him?
No, we don't disagree. I think a person can filibuster and accomplish those things, they just can't do it forever. Let the minority stand up and debate for 2 weeks, 3 weeks, something like that. Make them actually stand on the floor debating. First vote to end debate requires 60 votes, after one week, 55, after 2 weeks 50. That way a bill is not rushed through and opponents have a chance to muster opposition and raise hell. If it still passes, it passes. That's what a representative republic is all about. We vote the bums out next time, and guess what, we only need 50 votes, not 60, to dump their bad legislation.
During the Reagan era, we could have gotten rid of the DOE and we could have actually accomplished some things if there was no filibuster. During the Gingrich congress, there was a Dem President, so we effectively needed 67 votes, but during Bush's era, the Senate was where judges, tax cuts and budget cuts went to die. GOP weak-kneed lily livers gave up and threw in with the socialists, and that is why we have the mess we have now. Let's try governing, and that requires 50 percent plus one, not 60 percent. Let the Dems win their little votes now, let's make sure they know we are going to run on a platform of getting rid of not 2 years of socialism but 70, and then get rid of them with a majority vote.
What was it Obama said--"I won, deal with it." It's our turn next time.